Comment 17 for bug 556933

On 2010-08-25 15:51, papukaija wrote :
> "Let us try to be clear. What are you calling a "folder renaming
> *issue*"?"
> -> You wrote about it in this bug's description "Among other folders,
> ~/Desktop is renamed ~/Bureau, but only if it is empty."
I was asking what are you calling an *issue*, what is your definition of
this fuzzy word.
That renaming problem is not an issue=bug, it is the issue=consequence
of a bug.
A bug amounts to code you can change to have something done correctly.
> "If a folder contains data, it would be crazy to rename it."
> ->That's what xdg-user-dirs is supposed to do when the a user changes
> system's language.
Hence, by way of hypothetical syllogism, xdg-user-dirs would be supposed
to do crazy things when the a user changes system's language. Hence, ab
absurdo, if Ubuntu is not supposed to be crazy, xdg-user-dirs is not
supposed to do that. In fact, it is supposed to have the desktop appear
as Bureau by whatever method is appropriate and it uses rename which is
the wrong one instead of symbolic link which is the good one. That
wrong choice is the bug.
> "In consequence of that bug the system MUST keep TWO desktops: Desktop
> and Bureau. The consequences for the user is to have desktop data
> hidden and maybe unmovable. This is proving enough that the folder
> renaming method is the buggiest thing on earth."
> ->How would you fix bug 1?
Again, there is no bug 1. That's something you invented.
There is a problem 1 that disappears when what you call bug 2 is fixed.
> "A symbolic link is avoiding that bug by having a single directory
> with two names."
> ->Avoiding isn't the same as fixing a bug. (see the changelog for the
> recent system update for upstart).
I'm sorry. I should have written "avoiding a *problem*". Fixing a bug
is avoiding a problem.
You make me write a lot.
> "It does EXACTLY the same thing (same results) but in a manner without
> a bug."
> ->How can you be so sure that someone will write and package your
> solution without any bugs?
I did not say that he will not add a bug I said that he will remove one.
However, you may be the only one to believe that someone will make a
mistake when he 1) replaces a rename with a link and 2) removes a rename.
But systems that have been damaged by that bug must be repaired.
> 'If you think of it twice, making symbolic links does indeed "create
> localized versions of these directories".'
> ->For the user it looks so, but technically a symbolic link isn't the
> same as a folder/directory.
Yes. Not only for the user, for every program in the system. The
opengroup.org definition is "A type of file with the property that when
the file is encountered during pathname resolution, a string stored by
the file is used to modify the pathname resolution". That means that any
program accessing Bureau will in fact access Desktop transparently. And
that is exactly the goal. The only programs that will notice the
difference are those specifically asking "is it a symbolic link?"
because they scan the filesystem and they do not want to find the same
data twice or they want to copy symbolic links as such.
> "Renaming directories is the worst thing to do."
> ->And challenging Microsoft is the worst thing to do for fixing bug 1
> instead of abandoning the whole Ubuntu project.
Not understood.
> " If you're not sure of that, try renaming your /etc directory"
> -> /etc is just a default folder name. Just edit some config file and
> there you go. Or an other way: Make a new partition to your hdd/ssd or
> use an existing one from an internal/externel drive, move the etc
> folder (and rename it at the same to eg. mysystem) to that partition
> and edit needed config files. Now you could have moved and renamed
> your etc folder.
Which "some config files"?
What you say sounds like pre-re-installation steps.
> "I have no acquaintance with Debian and I do not want to report to
> Debian. The main reason is that, as you say it yourself, I do not want
> Debian to prevent Ubuntu improvements."
> Bear in mind that this package is just synced from Debian. Debian gets
> the package from upstream.
>
> "I want to keep Ubuntu deciding if they want to apply simple fixes
> with high benefits."
> That would be much easier to do if there would be something to apply
> (to patch).
>
> "It's up to Ubuntu to decide if they want to also send the report to
> Debian and wait 3 years for the fix to come."
> -> No, the decision is already made and has to be followed at
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Responses#A%20bug%20that%20should%20be%20handled%20upstream
Yes, sometimes Ubuntu make modifications of their own.
I just didn't know that you were the deciding person, sorry.